White Identity, a Book Review

The book is indeed listed on Amazon - with a 5-star review - but is 'temporarily out of stock'. I didn't want to wait for restock so purchased mine a Jared Taylor's site, as Will suggests. Facinating read.

So, the only question that remains is, which race will dominate?

If you think this will NOT be the bottom line, you engage in another sort of 'fantasy'.

So hey kids, "Let there be war".

Good luck Whitey, the numbers aren't on your side.

ww {a white person actually}

Utter nonsense. The racial issue is certainly not new to the human condition but it has changed drastically over the last 2000 years. The people's of the Italia believed that black's were depressed because they had too much bile and northerners were insane because they had too much phlegm, which accounted for the different skin colors. Yet today no American is going to say that Italians are a different race than the Dutch. Jews, on the other hand, look white and are virtually indistinguishable visually from other white skinned humans, yet are considered a different race.

Racial identity has nothing to do with the color of one's skin. Racial identity is defined by the group that the person is in. The Mongols were so successful because of how they defined racial identity, if you fought with the Hoard you were Mongol. People of every Eurasian faith and race fought and died as Mongols. In medieval Christendom and Islamic controlled areas the only important distinction was what faith a person was. The first and the third crusades illustrate just how important one's faith was.

It is not a matter of the color of one's skin. It is a matter of a concept used through out Roman and Medieval history yet completely disappears from modern historical accounts. It is the idea of 'the other.' 'The other' is defined differently in every cultural context but boils down to something feared but not generally understood by a culture. It is different and therefore dangerous if allowed in.

The irrational fear of 'the other' is at work here too. There are legitimate issues of culture. Cultures that have drastically different value structures are going to have issues co-existing. There are no legitimate issues of 'race.' Race is an artificial concept as it is currently used. Obama is equally, genetically, white and black. Yet he is considered racially Black. That is, from a genetic stand point, non-sense. Race is whatever a culture says it is. Currently you are saying that Race is about the color of your skin. As long as that remains the case I agree that there will be problems. I, however, do not see Race as being related to one's skin but instead to a person's culture.

I've seen the studies as well that indicate that children are racist from a young age. All of the studies I've seen on the matter are very flawed. Studies done with children that are unable to talk are generally testing where and for how long children look. So one example of a study that found children to be 'naturally' racist had them look at pictures of people of different skin colors. Children raised by whites looked longer at non-whites, children raised by blacks looked longer at non-blacks, ect. This supposedly showed that children knew and understood race. That is people expecting racism and using data to find it.

Any person that has spent significant time around and watching children learning (and adults for that matter) know that things are studied longer which are not understood. A child surrounded by nothing but cubes would equally stare longer at a ball than they do a cube. When every anything breaks with a child's expectations they look at that thing longer.

I have not read the book and so can only comment on it based upon this article. From this article however, it appears that this book looked at one incredibly small slice of time and culture, looked at flawed studies made within that small slice of time and culture, and then made a conclusion about the human condition. A case study of white/black relations in America proves nothing about the human condition as a whole nor what is capable of.

America has a long history of hating 'the other,' be it Jews, Catholics, Irish, Chinese, or Blacks. Every culture and time has its own 'the other' as defined by the cultural imperative of the moment. If you want to have a real understanding of the human condition make sure that you take data points across time and space, not just those that agree with your opinion.

I haven't read "White Identity" yet, but I understand the basis of the arguments being made having read content like this before.

I hope Mr. Taylor examines the problems in the Bell Curve between numbers for total whites and non-Hispanic whites and between south Asians, north Asians and middle eastern Asians. There are some inconsistencies in the numbers that make me suspicious of its conclusion. I would also like an explanation on why North Africans blacks (specifically from areas such as Nigeria and Egypt) are statistically much smarter than Central and South African blacks.

Often, racial data is lumped together to present a conclusion, grouping "whites" or "blacks" of myriad different countries/regions of the world together, when a breakdown of those races by country/region would present an entirely different conclusion.

Book: -1

jonyfries's comment: +1

Despite my first satirical comment, I would like to say that I think the whole idea of group identity is flawed.

It is a crutch for morally week individuals. And when such ideas are embraced it does indeed lead to war.

Racism is an old and tired idea best left in the dustbin.
ww

WHATEVER YOU BELIEVE IT'S NICE THAT PEOPLE CAN DISCUSS THE ISSUE WITHOUT BEING ATTACKED AS BIGOTS. THERE ARE FEW FORUMS WHERE WHITES AND BLACKS CAN CALMLY DISCUSS THE ISSUE WITHOUT SOMEONE GETTING OFFENDED OR ACTING OFFENSIVELY.

Fine Dave, but why are you yelling??

Caps are best used for emphasis.

ww

Dave is the resident 'Loud Howard'

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dilbert_characters#Loud_Howard)

Most online communities have at least few.

Ah Ifon, gotcha.
ww

I'm always intrigued by race discussions, after all would we really think about it so much if we weren't told so much about it?

I have always wondered: in a random boxing match between a white guy and a black guy, how many black people would root for the white guy? From my experience (please don't point out this is biased, I am well aware that this is not scientific) black people are quick to support another black person. Look at how many voted for Obama (90%?), yet look how many people voted for someone like Allen West in the 23rd Congressional district, which is 82% White. I do believe white people are much more likely to view people for more than just the color of their skin. I am much more aware of how much hatred Mexicans have of blacks, and I can't tell you how many times I have heard "pinche wedo"' (Google it).

It has become culturally unacceptable within the predominantly white culture for whites to use racially 'insensitive' terms. I looked up the term 'pinche wedo' on urban dictionary, which stated 'it is similar in meaning to "Cracker", "Honky" or "Whitey".' I don't know about anyone else but I certainly am not going to get offended by any of those terms. In my experience such terms are not found offensive by the vast majority of whites. This means that while the words get used they are not likely to get any powerful negative feedback that would stop their use. Further the negative feedback would have to come from within the culture that uses the term and racism against whites is not generally seen negatively. Without internal negative feedback for the use of the words they will be unlikely to stop being used.

Presently within the predominantly Black culture within America it is common for people to see the world as an us and them, perhaps more of an us vs them. Blacks that act 'white' from the Black culture's perspective are seen negatively as having 'sold out' (Recent NPR story on bi-racial kids raised in white neighborhoods).

This results in a separation of culture between the white and black community. Slowly not just basics of culture but also of language are increasing the separation. Since Black Americans have negative views of blacks that 'act white' the cultural divide is, in the short term at least, likely to increase. This could also lead to increased tensions between the cultures. There have been positive movement on this in the last decade, moves that will hopefully allow the cultures to grow closer and eventually become a single culture.

While active white racism against blacks has decreased markedly over the last 20 years, active white racism against Mexicans has increased. Regardless of the merits of the anti-immigration movement*, from the Mexican perspective we are limiting their opportunities and making it dangerous to seek a better life. Resentment on their part is a natural reaction to the white's reaction to the immigration issue. I find it unlikely that many Irish would have had too many positive things to say about the European Americans that preceded them to America during the potato famine.

None of this is designed to excuse race based judgments made by anyone of any race. There are good and bad members of every cultural background. Black and Mexican communities are guilty of viewing whites as 'the other.' Just as whites often view Blacks and Mexicans as 'the other.' Regardless of these issues we have to deal with them directly.

Blacks, Mexicans, Germans, Irish, Chinese, Muslims, Catholics, and indeed Whites are not going any where and we have to learn how to live with each other. Some of these groups were integrated so long ago that it seems entirely foreign to think that they were ever seen as separate at all.

Germans, Irish, Catholics, and Jews especially have all integrated into the greater whole of the culture to such an extent that people do not even remember that there ever was an issue by and large.

East Asians have like wise been accepted into the White American culture to such an extent that there are very few issues between the the hybrid East Asian culture and the predominantly white culture in America. The same can generally be said of Africans and Europeans that move to America today as well. Quite simply they act with a similar culture as to be understood and not seen as 'the other.'

All of the above cultures met with harsh resistance from the existing culture in America and all of them have been more or less assimilated into
the American culture. This can, and almost inevitably will, be the outcome with Mexicans and Blacks. All of the cultures though have to learn to understand and stop fearing each other for irrational reasons.

*Immigration is a separate topic so I won't go into it, if you want to know my stand on it I have posted lengthy comments on it else where on scragged.

Very intelligent and elegant comment from jonyfries.

I couldn't agree more.
ww

I agree about "pinche wedo", it is not all that offensive. My point was more about the Mexican's people use of the phrase, in trying to point out plenty of other "races" are quite capable of racism. It seems all we hear is how racist the white people are, yet no one seems to question the other ethnic "races". And I agree with your comments Jonyfries, it is an irrational fear of "the others", I grew up without any Black people around, and at first I was fearful because I was ignorant (as in lacking knowledge). But then you get to know them and you find out we are all just the same. Too bad the media stokes the flames of racial division for political purposes, and pits us against each other, and unfortunately some take that too far and turn it into extreme bigotry.

Yea Alin,

Divide and conquer is the name of the elites game.
"keep them just smart enough to read their orders"
~Mussolini's wet linguini

ww

I do also find it frustrating that society in general has made the determination that racism is, almost by definition, prejudice of white people against other races. This is unfortunate and not helpful to the general dialog. When I hear blacks complain about how 'easy' my life has been I can get rather annoyed with them. I can assure the world that being white does not guarantee an easy life. I've created many of my own hardships but so to would I argue do most people in America, regardless of cultural upbringing.

All I have been given in life is a liberal education through out my educational life. I do not wish to understate the importance of a good liberal education to the well being of a person in life but anyone can get a liberal education even without the best family or schools. It is not economics that keep people poor, its a life view.

I highly recommend reading the article provided below. It was very influential in my life view. Proof for me that anyone can make it, they can use help, but not job training or money like we usually try to shove at them to get them to shut up, but instead a liberal education. It may not make them rich, but when you understand how to live you don't need a lot of money to have a good, productive life. The first generation almost never get the benefits of a liberal education, but their children and their children's children will reap the benefits as any one else born into a liberally education family.

Earl Shorris, “On the uses of a liberal education: 2. As a weapon in the
hands of the restless poor.” Harper’s (Sept. 1997): 50-60
http://www.honorshumanities.umd.edu/105Readings.pdf

This is splendid:

Although she did not say so, I was sure that when she spoke of the "moral life of
downtown" she meant something that had happened to her. With no job and no money, a
prisoner, she had undergone a radical transformation. She had followed the same path
that led to the invention of politics in ancient Greece. She had learned to reflect. In
further conversation it became clear that when she spoke of "the moral life of downtown"
she meant the humanities, the study of human constructs and concerns, which has been
the source of reflection for the secular world since the Greeks first stepped back from
nature to experience wonder at what they beheld.~Earl Shorris

So few seem to get that they are the prisoners in Plato's Cave while they remain TV watchers.

This is why I speak of Homo Vishnu Amerikanus, and the hords of TVZombies.

ww

Jonyfries says "it is. Currently you are saying that Race is about the color of your skin. As long as that remains the case I agree that there will be problems. I, however, do not see Race as being related to one's skin but instead to a person's culture." ..........Jesus where have I heard that tired old Canard about "Culture". Jonyfries where do you think culture comes from. Does it come out of the ground. Fall from the sky. Even animals have different cultures. They behave that way because they were born that way. Or evolved that way. Oh and America is just so racist as always. Tell the tutsis and hutus in Uganda.

Soprano,

What someone should explain to the "tutsis and hutus in Uganda.” is the way in which their Colonial past is a manipulation of “divide and conquer” which has left peoples at each others throats for centuries...and still goes on with all the Balkanization projects dreamed up in 'think tanks' like the Brookings Institute.

This is the real architecture of modern political power.

Your TVZombie views are manipulated in the very same way, thus your conditioned racist attitudes.
ww

""I, however, do not see Race as being related to one's skin but instead to a person's culture.""

Well you can call a train a powder puff but doesn't mean it won't still kill you if you get in it's way. You can argue biology, culture, poverty, politics and a multitude of other things till the cows come about how race isn't real or that skin color has nothing to do with anything but the fact is the Black Caucus exist as does the Hispanic Caucus and LaRaza and affirmative action, BET, and MEChA and 'the black agenda' etc and almost unlimited laws, policies and agenda based on this non existent racial skin color. There are literally hundreds/thousands of race based political, lobbying & social groups. All working as proponents of skin color, their own. So while you play pretend about this non existent skin color; these 'cultural groups' work to gain power & influence and will keep marching on whether you believe in it or not. Choo! Choo!

""While active white racism against blacks has decreased markedly over the last 20 years, active white racism against Mexicans has increased. Regardless of the merits of the anti-immigration movement*, from the Mexican perspective we are limiting their opportunities and making it dangerous to seek a better life. Resentment on their part is a natural reaction to the white's reaction to the immigration issue. I find it unlikely that many Irish would have had too many positive things to say about the European Americans that preceded them to America during the potato famine.""

And active racism from Hispanics? Limiting their opportunities? WTF are you talking about. Maybe you and yours should give up your 'opportunities' so the Mexicans won't be limited? Resentment on their part is natural but resentment on whites part is racism. Man you publicly educated droids are nothing if not entertaining.

"Resentment on their part is natural but resentment on whites part is racism."~Ernest

It is clearly racism on the part of each you mention Ernest.
And if one digs deep, one will find this is all the manipulation of social engineering. This is a paradigm to encourage such divisions, it is simply scientifically applied doctrine of "divide and conquer".

It is up to the intelligent individual to choose whether to be caught up in such brainwashing and perception manipulation, or to think things through for oneself.
The Clash of Civilizations that has been engineered will turn out for the benefit of none but the elite oligarchy that runs this show.
ww

The nature of the globalist dialectic has been explained particularly cogently by Noam Chomsky:

"See, capitalism is not fundamentally racist — it can exploit racism for its purposes, but racism isn’t built into it. Capitalism basically wants people to be interchangeable cogs, and differences among them, such as on the basis of race, usually are not functional. I mean, they may be functional for a period, like if you want a super exploited workforce or something, but those situations are kind of anomalous. Over the long term, you can expect capitalism to be anti-racist — just because it’s anti-human. And race is in fact a human characteristic — there’s no reason why it should be a negative characteristic, but it is a human characteristic. So therefore identifications based on race interfere with the basic ideal that people should be available just as consumers and producers, interchangeable cogs who will purchase all the junk that’s produced — that’s their ultimate function, and any other properties they might have are kind of irrelevant, and usually a nuisance"

. Noam Chomsky, Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky (New York: The New York Press, 2002), pp. 88–89.

Jonyfries spills 1664 words giving us opinions about a book that she has never read. I've actually read White Identity and Taylor's earlier book, paved With Good Intentions. I can highly recommend it.

>Jews, on the other hand, look white and are virtually indistinguishable visually from other white skinned humans, yet are considered a different race.

Menachem Begin considered Jews to be a separate race. <shrug> I'm not so sure, but have you read Abraham's Children: Race, Identity, and the DNA of the Chosen People by Jon Entine?

>There are no legitimate issues of 'race.' Race is an artificial concept as it is currently used.

Personally, I'm not hung up on the word "race." Have you read The History and Geography of Human Genes: Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi, Alberto Piazza? They start right off offering us the politically correct bromide that there really is no such thing as "race," and then they spend the next 428 pages documenting the very thing they say doesn't exist. So what words do they use? They are quite fond of the words "group" and "population," and it just so happens that these terms correlate with our everyday understanding of race.

Race, breed, subspecies, varietals, "cluster of alleles" - use whatever word you want to describe the observed non-trivial differences across the various branches of the human family which are in part rooted in biology which reflect different evolutionary paths as our ancestors encountered different challenges and climate. The physical sciences have absolutely demolished the "culture only" dogma served up over the past 100 years by Franz Boaz and his disciples. Human bio-diversity is real, it explains real world phenomena, and can accurately make predictions.

>Obama is equally, genetically, white and black. Yet he is considered racially Black. That is, from a genetic stand point, non-sense.

The existence of clines and crossbreeds not mean mean that breeds do not exist. After all, we're discussing races, not species. By the way, did you biologists also have problems precisely defining "species"? There are more than 20 definitions in use for "species." The situation even has a name: in biology it's called the "species problem."

http://euro-synergies.hautetfort.com/archive/2011/03/21/the-rivkin-project-how-globalism-uses-multiculturalism-to-su.html
(...)
"According to financial journalist G. Pascal Zachary, these rootless cosmopolitans constitute an “informal global aristocracy” recruited all over the world by corporations, depending totally on their companies and “little upon the larger public,” a new class unhindered by national, cultural, or ethnic bonds."[13]

"Barnett and Muller quoted Pfizer’s John J. Powers as stating that global corporations are “agents for change, socially, economically and culturally.”[14] They stated that global executives see “irrational nationalism” as inhibiting “the free flow of finance capital, technology, and goods on a global scale.” A crucial aspect of nationalism is “differences in psychological and cultural attitudes, that complicate the task of homogenizing the earth into an integrated unit. . . . Cultural nationalism is also a serious problem because it threatens the concept of the Global Shopping Center.”[15]
(...)

"This “cultural nationalism” is described by Rivkin and all other partisans of globalism as “xenophobia,” unless that “xenophobia” can be marshaled in the service of a military adventure when bribes, embargoes and threats don’t bring a reticent state into line, as in the cases of Serbia, Iraq, and perhaps soon, Libya. Then the American globalist elite and their allies become “patriots.”
(...)

For an analysis of the American neo-Bolshevist state see "The Strange Death of Marxism" by Paul Gottfried.

Willy Whitten said:
Soprano,

What someone should explain to the "tutsis and hutus in Uganda.” is the way in which their Colonial past is a manipulation of “divide and conquer” which has left peoples at each others throats for centuries...and still goes on with all the Balkanization projects dreamed up in 'think tanks' like the Brookings Institute.

This is the real architecture of modern political power.

Your TVZombie views are manipulated in the very same way, thus your conditioned racist attitudes.
ww.........................Here we go again Blame Whitey. I guess we can blame Ted Kennedy for the fact that the Mexican gangs are driving the blacks out of Los Angeles. Ted is the reason we have third world immigration. Read Race by John R. Baker .Tribal warfare has been going in africa long before Whitey came along. I wonder how many episodes of Law and Order and All in the Family you have on DVD. Try reading a book.

Soprano,

I threw out my TV in 1984 and haven't watched on since.

My library fills up two rooms.

ww

Ian J. MacDonald said:
Jonyfries spills 1664 words giving us opinions about a book that she has never read.

TWhen the proximate thesis is absurd, any argument piled on top of it can be no less absurd.

There are thousands of romance novels I have never read, and I don't need to read even one to know I don't want or need to read one.

"After all, we're discussing races, not species."

The species, has been known as the human RACE for centuries.

Breeding is for husbandry, not humans. We are not different breeds.

As far as this argument goes, it is all rhetorical jabberwacky based on "science" driven by political agenda--which is not science at all.

ww

"Jonyfries where do you think culture comes from."

You are quite right that culture is a natural process but it does not come from one's skin color. Culture comes from the interaction of persons within a group of people that consider themselves to be in some way related. Hence corporate culture, inner city culture, middle class culture, french culture ect. As I stated previously, there are many examples in history of people choosing culture based not on skin color but rather on how one lives. If one lived as a Goth, one was a Goth, regardless of heritage. Seeing people based upon the color is not entirely new, as the peoples of Italia during the Roman time indicated with their belief that differing amounts of the humors changed one's skin color as well as disposition. However, it is far from the only way people see differences. The Germans and the French have long seen each other as separate races despite both coming out of the Carolingian Empire and being, at least in large part, of Frankish decent.

The Hutus and the Tutsis are a perfect example of my point. They are, essentially, the same. Same genetic background, same skin color, same almost everything. Except the name. They decided they were different and therefore they created the idea of separate races and therefore created conflict between themselves. Race, Tribalism whatever the current context calls it, are simply different manifestations of 'the other.' That isn't to say that we should trust everyone else in the world. There are legitimate reasons to fear other persons or groups. I am by no means advocating dissolution of the military because there will always be groups that do which to cause us harm. That however will still be a result of either Realist, Economic, or Cultural concerns. Never due to anything that can be associated with the genetics of the other group.

"You can argue biology, culture, poverty, politics and a multitude of other things till the cows come about how race isn't real or that skin color has nothing to do with anything but the fact is the Black Caucus exist as does the Hispanic Caucus and LaRaza and affirmative action, BET, and MEChA and 'the black agenda' etc and almost unlimited laws, policies and agenda based on this non existent racial skin color."

I never argued that whites were alone in seeing 'the other,' in fact I specifically talk about Blacks and Mexicans seeing whites as 'the other.' 'The other' colors how every groups seeings other persons. Depending upon the cultural context 'the other' can be economic status, skin color, cultural heritage, sexuality, or eye color. All sides need to stop seeing each other as the color of their skin.

"Resentment on their part is natural but resentment on whites part is racism."

Being natural does not make something right. I did not say and did not intend to say that Mexicans were correct in feeling resentment, simply that it is a consequence that can be understood. As previously stated I do not have any desire to debate the immigration topic here as it is unrelated to this post, however I would say that your reaction shows just how natural the resentment is. Many Whites resent Mexicans for 'stealing' their jobs, opportunities ect. Why is it difficult to look at the issue from the Mexicans position and understand that they would feel the same resentment for not being allowed to, from their perspective, earn the job or opportunity. This is, once again, not to argue for or against immigration simply to understand one of the ramifications of the position that the American public has taken on the matter.

"The existence of clines and crossbreeds not mean mean that breeds do not exist. After all, we're discussing races, not species."

This, while true, is unrelated to my point. My point was regarding how we define Obama's race. As a culture it has been decided that he is white. There was even discussions regarding if he was 'really black' since he had a white mother. It was something to be discussed and decided in an almost democratic way. It was decided that he was black it was not something that could be tested in any kind of scientific way. Therefore 'race' as we currently use it in America is not related to genetic heritage but rather to whatever we decide it to be at that moment. Obama was always told that he was black so he believed himself to be black. However, he is genetically half white, was raised in a white culture, and so far as I've ever seen has very little in common with the majority of Black Americans other than having grown up being told that he was black.

Biodiversity is definitely real. I by no means intend to say that there are no differences between people of different genetic backgrounds. I would by no means be the best person to state exactly what those differences are. However, the argument that different 'races' should not live together due to the strife that it will cause is completely incorrect. Cases of successful cohabitation and cultural assimilation of different skin colors have occurred in history. Therefore it is incorrect to say that any given attempt is doomed to failure. In the contrived way that it was attempted here in America we have decidedly, thus far, only illustrated that we have not attempted to go about it correctly. Equality of races can only be achieved through equality of legal rights within a society. A government that consistently harps upon the 'racial' issue only serves to increase the belief that the differences are culturally significant and therefore potentially dangerous.

"Here we go again Blame Whitey"

It is nonsense to believe that a people who conquered nearly the entirety of the world are not in some way responsible for the future events of the world. In the case of the Hutus and the Tutsis specifically there was certainly no unbroken chain of events from the rule of the area by Europeans to the killings that occurred there. It was in the end the decision of the people within the culture and conflict itself that determined what would occur there. The actions of Europeans from the Greeks to the Romans to the Europeans during the Imperial era have undoubtedly changed the world. For better or worse I can not say since I'm not privy to what would have happened without those actions. Further it is equally impossible to say that Arabs, Turks, Indians, Mongols, and Chinese have not had a huge effect upon the world. Every major culture that ever interacted with another culture has had an effect upon the world. What we do know is that there has been warfare in all parts of the world in all time periods. It is unlikely that it was caused by a single cultural influence.

However, the problem still remains that you see it as 'blaming whitey' and indeed much of the world sees it that way. I certainly would never blame an entire race for the actions of the leaders of a single country. that is as much nonsense as blaming me for American slavery. I've certainly never owned slaves and certainly would never condone it yet there are those that believe that I should pay for the sins of people of a different era that happened to share my skin color. Placing blame or making moral judgments on a person due to the color of their skin is never acceptable regardless of the color that skin might happen to be.

To clarify my argument:
There may be a nontrivial genetic difference between persons of different genetic heritages. My argument is simply that those differences, trivial or not, do not preclude the peaceful cultural unification of persons of different genetic heritages.

@jonyfries

You are correct in saying that genetics does not preclude peaceful cultural unification. What, then, does? Where on earth or at any time in history have EVER been peaceful cultural unification? The Ottoman Turks are said to have tolerated Jews and Christians, but these groups were a tiny minority in a sea of Moslems. When minorities get above 10%, things seem to get nasty.

Why is this? If genetics isn't doing the precluding, what is?

Willy Whitten wrote:
>When the proximate thesis is absurd, any argument piled on top of it can be no less absurd.

Another no-nothing liberal who spouts off about books he hasn't read.

jonyfries wrote:
>My point was regarding how we define Obama's race. As a culture it has been decided that he is white.

Oh really? Is that whyhe described himself as black on his census form and on his college applications? Or admitted that he had "undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action programs during my academic career"?

jonyfries wrote:
>To clarify my argument:
There may be a nontrivial genetic difference between persons of different genetic heritages. My argument is simply that those differences, trivial or not, do not preclude the peaceful cultural unification of persons of different genetic heritages.

Is that how you would describe America today? "Peaceful cultural unification of persons of different genetic heritages"? That really the process you observe?

Why am I discussing a book with people so obviously ignorant of its contents?

Christians were the majority in much of the Ottoman Empire for at least the medieval period. However, they were kept separate. Christians and Jews paid additional taxes and ruled themselves. There was Catholic, Orthodox, and Jewish leaders that handled any and all internal issues. There was not a good cultural unity between the religions.

However, it is a good example of unity between separate races for as people converted to Islam they were accepted as members of the Islamic community. At that time period Religious affiliation not genetic heritage was what mattered. As such acceptance within a new group was as easy as changing ones creed. This was not just true of the Ottoman turks but was also true in all of Christendom and the Islamic world. The only thing that mattered was your faith, not the color of your skin.

Please note that I am attempting to say that there has ever been a completely harmonious group. People will always find something different and seek to set themselves above other for that thing. Modern America has plenty of groups that are none too fond of each other, Liberals vs Conservatives, Geeks vs Jocks, Wine Snobs vs everyone else in each case members of each group believe that they are in some way superior to people not within that group. In any group of meaningful size there is bound to be subdivisions. My argument is simply that race is as equally artificial a division as any other line we wish to draw and can be broken down just like any other artificial cultural line.

"Oh really? Is that whyhe described himself as black on his census form and on his college applications? Or admitted that he had "undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action programs during my academic career"?"

I do not understand how that disagrees with my argument. Culture, in this case including the government, decided he was black and therefore he is. Due to the culture not due to genetics, since he is equally white as black. The culture has set up certain advantages for people to claim to be black so this of course leads to the one drop of blood idea that makes people black since many people will seek to be black when it is beneficial and everyone else will assume that they do even if they don't. Once again your statement and mine do not in any way disagree with each other.

It has occurred to me that you might be referring to my statement about him being 'black enough' and the democratic method of determining if he was black. That occurred during his presidential campaign. Some people attempted to lessen his Black support by putting for the argument that Obama is actually black since he has a white mother and grew up in a white household.

"Is that how you would describe America today? "Peaceful cultural unification of persons of different genetic heritages"? That really the process you observe?"

I do see a significant amount of peaceful cultural unification within America, I also see a significant amount of cultural warfare going on. If I was asked how cultural relations within America were currently going I would certainly agree that there are significant issues. My argument is that looking beyond just the United States data it is easy to find arguments for how genetically diverse persons can form a coherent cultural whole that does not have internal issues based upon a persons genetic heritage.

I stated that there is some peaceful cultural unification, and provided examples, and stated that there is some not so peaceful cultural interaction. If you want to argue specific cases that I brought up feel free to do so but do not simply tell me I am wrong without presenting any intellectual backing to your statement it does not help your argument and only serves as a distraction from meaningful debate upon the matter.

"Another no-nothing liberal who spouts off about books he hasn't read."
~Ian J. MacDonald

MacDonald being another 'Type F Personality' missing the obvious: that which is right in front of them, preferring the phantasmagoria planted in their heads by the electronic necromancers.

The 'Type F Personality'? The common fool.

Classifying me as a “liberal” is your first mistake, as you are hanged by the rope of Hegelian dialectics and see the world through the synthetic thesis/antithesis paradigm of your conditioning.

Your second mistake is in logic, for it is so that any thesis built upon a false proposition fails in every detail just like a “house built on sand”--wash the sand away and the house will collapse.

It is obvious from the review of the book here, even by a booster, that the tome is another of legions of racist diatribes, such as can be found on sites such as Occidental Observer and this one.
The basic thesis that denies the fact of one human race, and divides the species into disparate categories has one agenda as it's obvious purpose—to dehumanize 'the other'.

It is this vile racist agenda that I am rejecting.
None of your specious rhetoric is going to hide the fact that you are a racist.

Calling someone a liberal or a racist does not in any way refute their point. Reasonable discourse precludes the use of generalized terms to describe the other party as they are weighted down with historical meaning that rarely correctly matches the person one is debating. After all there are some points on which I am very 'conservative' and others on which I am very 'liberal,' and very few upon which I am moderate. Any person that rationalizing arguments themselves and does not simply parrot their heroes are sure to have a range of view points not easily summed up with a single word.

To throw out an argument due to its source and not its merits, while popular with people of all view points, is hardly is a good way to reach the best outcome for society. Just because you don't like the messenger doesn't mean that the message isn't both valid and true.

In brief, either remain civil and rational or go away.

"To throw out an argument due to its source and not its merits"~jonyfries

As I take it this is applied to me, I will note that I made an argument on the points and the merits and came to my conclusion that the views are racist by reason and logic.

If you don't like the logic I used, dispute the logic, don't attack the messenger--which in this instance is obvious hypocrisy.
ww

It was directed at all parties that use vague terms in arguments which are directed to discredit the messenger while ignoring the message. My point is not that any given person is or is not racist. My point is that it doesn't matter. You can believe that a person is racist but if they make a correct statement that doesn't change the veracity of the statement.

Instead of labeling the person one can label the idea. The idea that two groups of different genetic heritages can not live together is a racist idea. That is true. However, the argument against it can not be 'the idea is racist therefore it is not true.' The exact same is true for Ian calling you liberal. It is true that viewing people of differing genetic heritage as compatible within a single society is a liberal idea. However, simply stating that it is liberal does not make the statement false. Further just because a person holds an idea that is racist or liberal does not make that person racist or liberal as a persons world views can not be so easily summed up.

Rhetorical tricks of this nature are unfortunately very effective at winning over by standers to your side, but they do not in anyway show or argument to be valid nor true. It shows simply that you're either angry (in your case due to his attack your you personally, a natural reaction), you do not have any other valid points to make, or your goal is not a better, more accurate understanding of the world but instead simply wish to win points with the spectators.

Arguments of this kind boil down to who can throw the best insult not who's idea is correct. Now shall we debate the merits of the article or try to one up each other on the insult totem pole?

Jonyfries,

I will note that your last comment is applicable to both MacDonald an myself, let me be clear:

As you will note, my first comments were 'tit-for-tat' in that he had no argument to me other than personal characterization.

My further argument is based on my studies of social engineering and in depth study of the architecture of modern political power. This study involves a poly-mathematical regime of topics to comprehend, and goes beyond the paradigm of present academia.

Unless one is familiar with the Bernaysian Public Relations regime, and the techniques of Hegelian dialectics as a tool of divide and conquer—as a proven historical reality, then one is left inside that box with no awareness of that which is without.

I can leave my comments as they stand, or be more forthcoming. In my experience with the moderation of this site, being more forthcoming is then interpreted as “going wildly off topic.”

I am therefore left with the dilemma of 'damned if I do-damned if I don't”.

BTW Jonyfries, my last post was written before I came upon the next comment you made.

"Anger" on my part? No. Perhaps a bit too "clever".
As I posted in another thread, I have no animosity to the site, nor any particular commentators. I have what can be seen as an "outside" point of view. A view I have nurtured purposely as I find this to be a profoundly sick society; one 'drugged' by electronic smack, perception manipulation and wholesale brainwashing.

It is no doubt then that my commentary will make most uncomfortable.

I will leave you to decide if "White Identity" is in fact racism or not, I have already come to that determination.
ww

Willy Whitten wrote:
>None of your specious rhetoric is going to hide the fact that you are a racist.

racist (n) - 1. someone who is winning an argument with a leftist; see "white person."

jonyfries wrote:
>I do not understand how that disagrees with my argument. Culture, in this case including the government, decided he was black and therefore he is.

Here is what you wrote:
>This, while true, is unrelated to my point. My point was regarding how we define Obama's race. As a culture it has been decided that he is white.

So what has "culture" decided? That he's black or white? Did you write what you meant or did I simply not understand you?

>If you want to argue specific cases that I brought up feel free to do so

I could, but someone has already written a book that does precisely that. It's called "White Consciousness" by Jared Taylor - a book you have not read and apparently do not intend to read.

>The idea that two groups of different genetic heritages can not live together is a racist idea.

What do you think of Taylor's discussion of race riots in California government schools? What do you think of the research that suggests that black boys learn best in an environment that is geared towards their needs? One where competent black male teachers are in charge?

What do you think of the epidemic of prison violence in California? California correctional officials found that assigning prisoners to cells on the basis of race reduced the level of tension and violence. Did such assignments in fact reduce the levels of tension and violence, or were the correctional officials mistaken? And what do you make of the the Supreme Court's ultimate opinion that such racial assignments were somehow unconstitutional? Do you agree with the Supreme on this? Or do you think that this was a case of black robed politically-correct diversicrats imposing yet another one of their visions on the people? And if "diversity is our strength," why must it almost invariably be coercively imposed on people? When some teenage at Walmart played a prank and announced over the PA system that all black people must leave the store, it became national headline news. When American Renaissance's conferences were shut down two years in a row by terrorism and overt political pressure, there was nary a peep in the media about it. Why is that?

Silly questions since you guys haven't bothered to read Taylor.

Willy and jony, I don't have a problem discussing Taylor's ideas in a mature and intelligent way free of rancor with people whose weltanschauung is fundamentally different from my own. Who knows, maybe *I* am wrong on all this stuff, but how do I do that with people who won't even bother to do the reading assignment?

Can you identify is anything in "White Consciousness" that is factually incorrect? Or is it just a question of "I know what I know, and I say it's racist and I say to hell with it"?

“When the proximate thesis is absurd, any argument piled on top of it can be no less absurd”, ww

I completely agree. In order to be valid, abstract arguments and technical studies must be consistent with basic premises held to be true. If the premises are flawed, so will be the conclusions. It would not be necessary to examine the resulting conclusions in any detail.

It is relatively easy to observe and justify that skin color and other external physiological features, such as an Asian eye-lid, are non-fundamental, relatively superficial aspects of human beings in that they do not make a significant difference as to the wide range in human actions or capabilities. The human brain and its highly evolved conceptual capabilities along with free will are the characteristics that most explain and are most responsible for the enormous range of values, scientific thought, technology, art, architecture, culture, etc., that set human beings apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.

It is well understood that cultural surroundings and teachings matter as to who and what types of human beings and other values that we prefer. However, one would have to do more than catalog (a) the cultural behavior of ancient ancestors, or (b) the failures of modern government enforced segregation programs, to prove that somehow racism is now part of our nature, i.e. genetic makeup. Statistical correlation does not prove causality no matter how consistent. JonyFries also argued historical counterexamples. If genes were at play embedding racism into our nature, what would explain the counterexamples?

Although there are studies that attempt to attribute to genes influence on human behavior that we think of as choice, such as alcoholism, the hypothesis that our genes force us to ignore the conclusions of very basic logic and reason, borders on the absurd. It is true that one's emotions can be out of line with his intellectual conclusions. However, psychological and emotional introspection by this particular white guy is that his emotions are completely in line. Admiration of brilliance, talent, attractiveness, etc. and interest in fraternizing is not related to superficial physiological features, so the gene causing a racist nature must have mutated in me.

The book may be worth reading for other insights, such as perhaps explaining the tendency toward racism in human culture. This would not prove that racism is inherent in human nature because mankind does not have near sufficient causal understanding of the role of biochemistry, cell biology, neurophysiology, etc. in human values and behavior. Also, honest introspection is a sufficient counterexample to such a claim, despite the inherent dangers of bias and selective processing of evidence.

PS: Meant "desegregation" in my last post, but could have said "(b) the failures of modern government enforced segregation or desegregation programs".

Historically and presently, Western empires have divided people against each other, blamed the resulting conflict on the people themselves, and thus justified their control over both the people, and the region they occupy. This was the strategy employed in major recent geopolitical conflicts such as the breakup of Yugoslavia and the Rwandan genocide. In both cases, Western imperial ambitions were met through exacerbating ethnic rivalries, providing financial, technical, and military aid and training to various factions; thus, spreading violent conflict, war, and genocide. In both cases, Western, and primarily American strategic interests were met through an increased presence militarily, pushing out other major imperial and powerful rivals, as well as increasing Western access to key economics resources.

>It is relatively easy to observe and justify that skin color and other external physiological features, such as an Asian eye-lid, are non-fundamental, relatively superficial aspects of human beings in that they do not make a significant difference as to the wide range in human actions or capabilities.

Who said anything to the contrary? Did Taylor?

Oh wait, you're just another person spouting off opinions about a book that you have not read and that you have no intention of reading.

>This was the strategy employed in major recent geopolitical conflicts such as the breakup of Yugoslavia and the Rwandan genocide.

It's all whitey's fault, isn't it. <roll eyes>

racist (n) - 1. someone who is winning an argument with a leftist; see "white person."~MacDonald

The arrogance shown in this comment {winning?} matches the ignorance of the comment.

I have already explained that I am not involved in this phony Left/Right divide.

Since the advent of scientific social engineering, all a Culture is simply the scum grown in a petri dish. All is contrived, which means it is absolutely trivial.

My view is that any other "identity" aside from maturing into a coherent 'personal identity' is throwing away an opportunity to become the unique person you were born to be. I see it as a moral weakness to use such crutches as identity cults, and dogmatic associations to buttress what is lacking personally.
ww

"It's all whitey's fault, isn't it. <roll eyes>"~MacDonald

Jejune and typical ignorance.

No, it is a systemic problem, "whitey" is simply another pawn on the global chessboard.

You obviously have no understanding of the architecture of modern political power. Your view of reality has been programmed into you from the outside. You recite worn out scrachy scripts, just like that Chatty Cathy doll I mentioned before.

You are putting on display an ironclad dogmatic mind.

ww

DESIGN MASQUERADING AS DIAGNOSIS
The only way to successfully 'predict' the future is to design it.

The electronic schizofication of a nation, is a veritable self-fulfilling prophecy.
The US is already 'balkanized' emotionally and spiritually by the corporatist public relations regime.
Diagnosis should be interpreted as Design, when reading policy papers by such orgs as NIC, Global Trends , and other 'think tank' products.
What is glibly termed as 'balkanization', is none other than 'regionalism', as preached by the 'tax exempt foundations' as early as the 1930s.
It is achieved by a strategy of tension, low intensity conflict, and outright hot war, a full spectrum of technique for full spectrum dominance.

> “Oh wait, you're just another person spouting off opinions about a book that you have not read and that you have no intention of reading.”

You are correct, except that I do intend to read the book.

Do you agree with the review that,

“Taylor's indisputable facts argue that race is of such profound import to human nature that no amount of social engineering or do-goodery can make it disappear.”

If so, (a) what is the core support for such an argument? Does Taylor define racism as an irrational valuing of superficial characteristics such as skin color? (b) How is race of profound import to human nature and why? I am not asking for a long statement of arguments in the book, but just some outline of how the author makes his case.

The strategy of tension I refer to also concerns exacerbating the conflicts between the "races". Note I said exacerbating, not creating from whole cloth, but pitting identity groups against on another for the purpose of dividing the population against itself.
This is simple Machiavellian realpolitik, now scietifically achieved by modern perception manipulation via media, by school curriculum, by presenting myth and false history, and by the use of rhetorical ruse, often referred to as 'Newspeak'.

ww

“Taylor's indisputable facts argue that race is of such profound import to human nature that no amount of social engineering or do-goodery can make it disappear.”

It depends here on whether these are indeed "indisputable facts", or data filtered through biased eyes.

There can be no question that the fear of other is a lasting human trait.
But the ways in-which societies deal with such fear and loathing, do indeed depend upon whether there is honest dialog, or simply engineered fragmentation for political gain.

It is simply proven historical fact that western society has been purposefully engineered for the political gain of an oligarchical elite.

From Machiavelli to Hegel to McLuhan to Bernays, is a long chain of blatant evidence of these techniques of power being wielded by the monied elites. It is only through the power of myth that such regimes survive.

"From Machiavelli to Hegel to McLuhan to Bernays, .......blatant evidence of these techniques of power being wielded by the monied elites...etc."

Yes, Iraq, Afganistan, Libya, Vietnam, .............it would seem to be the case. Human beings are, MANIPULATED FOOLS. Tragic.

"Historically and presently, Western empires have divided people against each other, blamed the resulting conflict on the people themselves, and thus justified their control over both the people, and the region they occupy. This was the strategy employed in major recent geopolitical conflicts such as the breakup of Yugoslavia and the Rwandan genocide."

In fact, it is quite the opposite. In Yugoslavia (more specifically Bosnia) first the Ottoman Turks, then the Austrians, and then the Serb dominated royal Yugoslavia, and finally the communists all tried to clamp down on ethnic identity. The Ottomans simply suppressed non-Muslims, while the Austrians tried to create an artificial 'Bosnianess' and the Yugoslavs a 'south-slav' idenity. None worked. What did work was old and organic/ non state created identities -- Serb, Bosniak (Muslim) and Croat. These were so powerful that Ottomans, Austrians, and Yugoslavs governments tried to suppress them, unsuccessfully.

Sounds good Mitch, except for the actual facts of what happened when Yugoslavia was shattered by Western power; the import of Mujahedin {Al Qaeda} by the CIA and the acts of provocation that sparked the war there. All of this having to do with the western interest in isolating and surrounding Russia by absorbing the old satellite nations that once made up the USSR. The success of this venture can be seen all along the southern border of Russia east to the Caucuses.
This isn't my theory this is Brzezinski and the CFR's Grand Chessboard theory , which continues today in the “Map of the New Middle East” being drawn by blood and fire as we speak. Also see the Brookings Institute “Which Road to Persia.”
ww

See Also: International Crisis Group
ICG's board also includes General Wesley Clark, former NATO-commander who led the destruction of Yugoslavia in 1999.
Yugoslavia's 1999 bombing violated international law and NATO's charter "when a group of OSCE countries....committed aggression against another OSCE country." Again in August 2008 in the Georgian - South Ossetian conflict "in violation of the Helsinki Final Act," prohibiting use of force. US-led NATO, in fact, proliferates it globally, Libya its latest adventure, threatening the entire region and beyond.

In continental Europe, neoliberalism began with the crisis in Yugoslavia caused by the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) of the World Bank and the IMF. The country was heavily exploited, fell apart and finally beset by a civil war over its last remaining resources.[1] Since the NATO war in 1999, the Balkans are fragmented, occupied and geopolitically under neoliberal control.[2] The region is of main strategic interest for future oil and gas transport from the Caucasus to the West (for example the "Nabucco" gas pipeline that is supposed to start operating from the Caspian Sea through Turkey and the Balkans by 2011.[3] The reconstruction of the Balkans is exclusively in the hands of Western corporations

[1]Michel Chossudovsky, Global Brutal. Der entfesselte Welthandel, die Armut, der Krieg, Frankfurt, Zweitausendeins, 2002.

[2]Wolfgang Richter, Elmar Schmähling, and Eckart Spoo (Hg), Die deutsche Verantwortung für den NATO-Krieg gegen Jugoslawien, Schkeuditz, Schkeuditzer Buchverlag, 2000.
[3]Bernard Lietaer, Jenseits von Gier und Knappheit, Interview with Sarah van Gelder, 2006

Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in his 1997 book, “The Grand Chessboard,” that, “Geopolitics has moved from the regional to the global dimension, with preponderance over the entire Eurasian continent serving as the central basis for global primacy.”[1] Brzezinski then gave a masterful explanation of the American global strategy, which placed it into a firm imperialistic context:

“To put it in a terminology that hearkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.”[2]

While imperial powers manipulate, and historically, even create the ethnic groups within regions and nations, the West portrays conflict in such regions as being the product of these “ethnic” or “tribal” rivalries. This perception of the East (Asia and the Middle East) as well as Africa is referred to as Orientalism or Eurocentrism: meaning it generally portrays the East (and/or Africa) as “the Other”: inherently different and often barbaric. This prejudiced perspective is prevalent in Western academic, media, and policy circles.

This perspective serves a major purpose: dehumanizing a people in a region that an imperial power seeks to dominate, which allows the hegemon to manipulate the people and divide them against each other, while framing them as “backwards” and “barbaric,” which in turn, justifies the Western imperial power exerting hegemony and control over the region; to “protect” the people from themselves.

[1]Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. (New York: Perseus, 1997), page 39

[2] Ibid, page 40.

The problem with your theory, WW, is that the ethnic conflicts in Yugoslavia go far back, date far earlier than 1990. They are evident at least as early as 1820 -- and I can make a good case they go back to the seventeenth century in a form that is almost exactly the same as today.

See. for example, Robin Okey's Taming Balkan Nationalism

I do not propose that there is no historical ethnic conflict. I am not giving you a theory Mr. Young I am giving you evidence of actual planning and operations.

People have died from drinking from naturally contaminated wells for centuries, this does not preclude the purposeful poisoning of wells.

It is the very fact that there are such natural conflicts between human beings that allows them to be gamed by powerful forces such as I speak of here.

Again, your hypothesis that it is merely natural ethnic tensions is like denying that human beings start forest fires because we know that lightning strikes start forest fires.

No matter how far back you point to such conflicts, it does not defeat that there have been outside political powers exacerbating and playing upon ethnic tensions. The techniques of divide and conquer go back to Ancient Rome and beyond.
ww

Willy, you need to read

http://www.scragged.com/articles/what-is-a-nation

It argues that Tito was able to keep the lid on the pot there by killing anybody who got out of line. That worked, same as it worked in Roman times.

http://www.scragged.com/articles/the-dummy-s-guide-to-nation-building

It points out that if you kill enough people the rest straighten out and fly nice. Tito did that. When he died, nobody could so it flew apart. There would have been less death if Tito's successor had been able to use his methods.

But Tito was more subtle than people give him credit for. he was fair about being unfair.

Fred,

I am somewhat familiar with Tito and his methods.
He seemed one of the few who instilled fear even unto the masters in Moscow.
As far as complete Machiavellian draconia, Tito appears to have been a real master of brutal realpolitik.
He also seems to have been intelligent, and not insane in the same sense as Lenin and Stalin.
ww

Don't you think that his methods led to fewer deaths than the techniques we used in Iraq and or Afghanistan?

I think Tito had a very different mission;
Stability.

The mission of the evil empire is to destabilize.
As there is the larger NWO agenda at hand here, mass depopulation is involved--purposeful, evil beyond the average imagination.

Personally I would choose neither a individual dictator, nor a subsidiary major domo of the Global Imperialists.

If one grasps the history of the "cold war", it will be found that Tito was meant to be a local chain store chieftain, but had the wits and cunning to rule on his own--much like Gaddafi was able to do for 40 something years.
ww

">This, while true, is unrelated to my point. My point was regarding how we define Obama's race. As a culture it has been decided that he is white.

So what has "culture" decided? That he's black or white? Did you write what you meant or did I simply not understand you?"

Wow... yeah bad editing on my part. That should be: 'As a culture it has been decided that he is -black-.' That statement should make my argument more clear.

The idea, however, that the discussion of ideas require the reading of by each member of the discussion of each book referenced is impossible. The art of written argument is one of references and conclusions. If there are parts of the book that show that my historical examples do not show, as I argue, that different races can live together please cite that proof so that we can discuss the merits of that point. I do not have time to read every book written on either side of this argument and I very much doubt that you incredibly well versed in liberal writings on the topic.